IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0350625.html

Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records

Author

Listed:
  • Isa Spiero
  • Merijn H Rijk
  • Matthew A Scheeres
  • Frans H Rutten
  • Geert-Jan Geersing
  • Tamara N Platteel
  • Karel GM Moons
  • Lotty Hooft
  • Johanna AA Damen
  • Roderick P Venekamp
  • Artuur M Leeuwenberg

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide a large source of data that can be used for research purposes. Extraction of information from unstructured clinical notes in EHRs can be automated by large language models (LLMs). Although LLMs are promising for this task, challenges remain in reliable application of LLMs to EHR, including the lack of development and validation for languages other than English. Here, we identified Dutch LLMs and compared their performance in a case study. We selected the MedRoBERTa.nl and RobBERT models based on local applicability, Dutch language compatibility, and model architecture. We evaluated their performance in a case study on the extraction of signs and symptoms from comprehensive Dutch primary care EHRs of patients with a lower respiratory tract infection. Using manually annotated clinical notes, models were trained as direct and prompt-based classifiers with varying amounts of training samples. Performance was expressed by precision, recall, and F1-score. The MedROBERTa.nl and RobBERT models showed good performance as direct classifiers, with a macro-averaged F1-score of 0.74 (range 0.56–0.87) and 0.69 (range 0.46–0.86) using 1600 training samples, respectively. The prompt-based classifiers performed worse with F1-scores of 0.08 (range 0.02–0.30) and 0.08 (range 0.02–0.22), respectively. In general, performance of the models was negatively affected by class imbalance and missingness of signs and symptoms. A minimum of 800 annotated training samples were required to obtain sufficient performance. The selected LLMs showed good performance as direct classifiers in extracting signs and symptoms from Dutch primary care EHRs. However, prompt-based models require performance improvement by further prompt engineering, and caution is warranted with imbalanced or partially missing EHR data.MedROBERTa.nl and RobBERT models, used as direct classifiers, can be considered for clinical research to extract information from clinical notes from Dutch primary care EHRs, potentially reducing manual annotation time and accelerating real-world research and evidence generation.

Suggested Citation

  • Isa Spiero & Merijn H Rijk & Matthew A Scheeres & Frans H Rutten & Geert-Jan Geersing & Tamara N Platteel & Karel GM Moons & Lotty Hooft & Johanna AA Damen & Roderick P Venekamp & Artuur M Leeuwenberg, 2026. "Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350625
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0350625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350625
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350625&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0350625?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0350625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.